Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

I agree with this viewpoint. The CCP cannot maintain absolute political control while hoping for sustained economic growth.

One of the key factors for sustained growth under the neoclassical model is technology or innovation, which can be achieved only through teaching the next generation how to think creatively and challenge status quo. In order to improve the model, they need to see its flaws.

If economic growth is a priority over political control, then the Chinese government must actually let go of control. In fact, as the author has stated, maintaining firm control, especially on Hong Kong, may prompt resistance and potentially an outcome that is the opposite of the original intention.

If interested, there are more details here: http://onefreelunch.blogspot.com/2012/08/sustained-growth-in-china.html

In such a large system such as China's basing China's economy off a neoclassical model is off course and not in the slightest bit accurate, especially when it does not even consider human awareness in economic changes.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_neoclassical_economics)

A lot of people forget that economics ties in closely with politics, sociology, anthropology...etc. (Economics was originally a study with philosophy and politics, also known as PPE, as opposed as a stand-alone subject due to it's inherently mathematical nature as it has become today).

And if a simple statement where technology obviously enhances growth as shown in the Solow - Swan Growth Model, it only indicates quantitatively like many economic models that it only gives further proof that certain factors may develop things further, while under the assumption of specific conditions. It should be nothing more than a tool to assist in giving directions. Also US development in R&D is way ahead of many nations, however things like SOPA and IP only hinders intellectual progress if it is not used properly. The original idea was to combat people who are going to steal ideas for the wrong reasons, not for personal gain. Ideas are meant to be shared yet they create barriers around it. Investment in technology is the right way forwards very obviously, but like what is mentioned above, if executed poorly or without objective aims, it is equally harmful. Apple vs Samsung is one of the perfect examples of such a scenario

Neither do I see a strong correlation between absolute political control and technology as you have stated, some of the most creative ideas are formed based on the situation that people live in even if they are heavily oppressed because these ideas could be their chance of survival (there were many great thinkers during the first and second world war who were similarly under oppressed conditions http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-1.html). Western thinkers that always force the statement that people should be TAUGHT HOW TO THINK CREATIVELY, basically contradicts the notion of creativity, as it cannot be defined and I do not think challenging the status quo will mean that people will necessarily become more “creative”. Anyway people in China are already challenging the status quo, if the Chinese government has to teach their citizens to challenge the status quo, that statement in itself is also wrong on many levels. People challenge the government because of the problems they are currently facing from the government, why would the government teach them to do what they don’t want their citizens to learn? It should be a collaborative process, not a system of rebellious and oppressive nature. Hong Kong as an example is already promoting resistance and going against the intention of the oppressive nature of the Chinese government.

Like every country, there are capable and less-capable people, and these people have their own characteristics that may allow them to flourish, while their technical abilities may be sound and of great potential, but it does not necessarily play a main role. And China as of this moment is already investing a lot of their GDP in technology, infrastructure and etc. As most people know, China places great commitment especially in their infrastructure to address future populations issues, and people have placed projections that many people will be moving towards city areas in the near future (very obviously in the search of a “better” future). However, their recent display of handling foreign policy is weak and requires a lot of work. But I’m sure China is more than aware of their own shortcomings if they do not address their domestic and foreign issues.

I do not think China must let go off control, they just need to find better ways of convincing people that the future is more than materialism and money, that Deng Xiao Ping has inscribed in their minds when he paid a visit to America. A lot of South East Asian countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore, along with China have very active citizens who are aware of welfare and the need for a just society. Like every individual have their own way of dealing with things, every country have their own way of dealing with things. Baseless assumptions and accusations will only be destructive, but understanding and prompting actions with good intentions is the right way to gain both political stability with economic growth, which is more than possible and will be their way forwards towards a super power, which I believe they are capable of.

Your sentiments are understood, but I do not necessarily agree that the re-education of Hong Kong is the fault of the Chinese Government nor do I think that being educated abroad is always an advantage.

Education should not only be addressed by schools, but it is in the interest of the parents to do the same and educate their children what’s wrong and what’s right. However, parents’ obsession of ensuring a high earning power to pay for a good education has created fixations that local institutions and schools is the only factor of a well-educated human being. They end up paying more attention to their bank accounts than their children. To add salt to the wound, some depend on their domestic helpers (maids) to teach their children English, this by itself is the perfect example of poor parenting. One family I know of has one helper for each of their 3 children (3 in total).

More importantly, the Hong Kong educational system itself isn’t exactly the “best”, and the statement that “Hong Kong has one of the world’s most educated populations: the city has, in per capita terms, perhaps more graduates of the world’s top 20 universities than anywhere outside of Manhattan.” does not mean people here are necessarily well-educated. Also how many of those students that do end up in the top 20 universities come back to Hong Kong? Also the question of “How did they get in those top universities in the first place?”

Many who enter top universities is only possible due to large investments from their parents to send them to top boarding schools in the UK and US to increase their opportunities of joining the elite. However, what do these people do after graduation, and how do they pursue their goals in life? Majority of them end up working in banks and MNCs, and do not participate proactively in the development of society. They “discuss” and “talk” about these issues, and produce eloquent little speeches about what should and shouldn’t be done, but at the end of the day most do nothing. So I do not think it is the Hong Kong curriculum that is benefitting the students, but the fact that many of them are thrown abroad. Let’s not forget the international schools that many locals join, and that also helps to improve the prospects of these students not through the local curriculum but through a British or American educational system.

One of the key things to also notice is that anybody (not necessarily Hkers) who HAVE money will try their best to send their children to the best schools and universities. So the point of sending the “elite’s children” abroad is not necessarily due to the “mindless drivel” at home, but also because the education in the UK and US attracts and educates the brightest minds. What kind of parent wouldn’t want their children to be placed in such an environment regardless of their country’s education? And additionally, locals have been proactively sending their children abroad even before the takeover by China.

So let’s not get ahead of ourselves and completely talk down the system in China, because I have met many graduates from China who display more humility and humanity than many HK-ers who have lived, worked and studied abroad.

Let’s be honest, neighboring country Singapore displays many of the developments Hong Kong requires, housing and a good educational system (for adults and children alike) to say the least. Though I also understand the moaning and groaning from local Singaporeans about their government, but then who doesn’t complain. Hong Kong needs to show strength in their independence collectively, and understand their own short comings and down falls instead of bickering over illegal structures building or latest gossip. I do agree that the national education is one of the last things Hong Kong needs, but people here need to create their own identity and understand what it means to have a “good” life.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.